The Deep State and its real motives

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Oh that whacky Deep State. It can be anything you hate whenever it wants. It can't defend itself because it either doesn't really exist or is out playing a friendly against the CFR with Rothschild serving as a referee. So why not also say that it is actually just about sex with children?

And, hey, while were at it why not prop up Putin as the hero that wants to bring it all down?

via RightWingWatch
On yesterday’s episode of “The Alex Jones Show,” Cernovich accused liberal Hollywood actors of spreading conspiracy theories involving Russian president Vladimir Putin because Putin is opposed to pedophilia.
Cernovich speculated, “What I think is actually going on here is Putin is actually very anti-pedophile and has done a lot of things to fight the –“


Jones interrupted, “Oh no, that’s what it is. There’s a global anti-pedophile network. Now if you’re not for the pedophiles, you’re against them and that’s what it is. And anybody for the deep state is now a pedophile.”
Click to expand...

Did you follow that through the Möbius strip of logic? All the Russia stuff is just a "conspiracy theory" and the real reason the Deep State hates Putin is because he is "very anti-pedophile" because reasons.

Now someone might think it is probably not a good idea for these two men to be so willing to throw around the pedophile accusation after they sorta accused a humble pizza joint of actually being the seventh seal to a Willy Wonka land of underage rape. An accusation that might have led to some unpleasantness. But people that would think they should probably not go down that road don't get just how awesome they think they are.

“They’re fighting hard to shut us up because, why?” Cernovich asked. “What is the common theme, Alex?”
“We’re not pedophiles. We’re not psychopaths. We’re not in the psychopath club,” Jones replied.
“Yeah, if we quit talking about pedophiles and the pedophile rings then they would leave us alone,” Cernovich said. “That’s what this is really about.”
Click to expand...

Yeah people. They are just fighting the good fight against imagined enemies. Who cares if there are real world consequences?

And that Deep State? Clearly it just wants to protect its crimes against these valiant heroes as they maybe will get a pizza joint that actually does do things wrong next time. Maybe. Next time.

And you might be wondering? Why isn't this in the Conspiracy section? Well, because what is the difference these days? The Deep State isn't something that only commenters on the net talk about. It is front line politics.

 
“We’re not pedophiles. We’re not psychopaths. We’re not in the psychopath club,” Jones replied.
Click to expand...
At best only one of those things is true, I'm pretty sure they have a club.
 
Travis said:
Why isn't this in the Conspiracy section? Well, because what is the difference these days? The Deep State isn't something that only commenters on the net talk about. It is front line politics.
Click to expand...
rightwingwatch.org is 'front line politics'?

You're right of course. But the reason there's no difference is that now 'front line politics' is itself a conspiracy theory!
 
Trebuchet said:
Isn't there a whole Bubba thread on this?
Click to expand...

Nah, that is about a huge vague underground pedophile ring. This is about a specific political entity that is trying to get revenge on Putin for being against child rape.

And I must say that I have heard a bunch about Putin but never anything about that.
 
How is reference to the deep state not a topic for the conspiracy theory forums? You are in the wrong forum with this, Travis.
 
Darth Rotor said:
How is reference to the deep state not a topic for the conspiracy theory forums?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by the term. It doesn't have to involve any shadowy cabals. It's often used to simply mean the collective self-interest of government employees, divergent from the country at large and even the elected politicians they nominally obey. No conspiracy is necessary for that. In fact, it's an almost unavoidable agency problem.
 
Deep state in the United States
In the United States, the concept of a deep state is an entity which has been alleged to be involved in a coordinated effort by career government employees and others to influence state policy without regard for democratically elected leadership.

The term... has been used in American political science to refer to entrenched government institutions wielding power, without necessarily implying a conspiracy
Click to expand...
If we actually had a democratically elected leadership this might apply, but... even if we did, the 'deep state' is not necessarily a bad ting. Voters are morons, and they elect morons to positions of power. Then those morons attempt to do stupid things that the 'deep state' naturally opposes.

So when we hear that Trump ordered a nuclear strike on North Korea, but for some reason the missiles never got launched, then we will know the Deep State really exists!
 
Well it seems there are two different things here.

There is the fantasy "Deep State" where Obama and Soros are giving marching orders to civil servants who are then conspiring to stop the Trump agenda.

There is the real "deep state" which is civil servants just doing their damned job that happens to be at odds with the right wing nuttery.

But what interests me is that Jones and Cernovich are claiming a new hybrid. They don't seem to be invoking the first they seem, instead, to be claiming the latter version is acting to protect its own interest which happen to be pro-pedophila. And that is why there is an ongoing Trump investigation etc.
 
Travis said:
There is the real "deep state" which is civil servants just doing their damned job that happens to be at odds with the right wing nuttery.
Click to expand...

Of course. Because in a Democracy, the job of government is to ignore elections and the will of voters. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Sometimes (ie, when you lose an election), you WANT it to be.
Click to expand...

You must have me confused with someone else. I didn't lose an election.

But in your haste to get your usual jab in, you missed the point: Government ignores the will of the people all the time, one way or another, and sometimes it's justified. I think protecting minorities from abuse is a good example of something congress or the supreme court should enforce even if there's a wave of racial violence in the general population. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Argumemnon said:
You must have me confused with someone else. I didn't lose an election.

But in your haste to get your usual jab in, you missed the point: Government ignores the will of the people all the time, one way or another, and sometimes it's justified. I think protecting minorities from abuse is a good example of something congress or the supreme court should enforce even if there's a wave of racial violence in the general population. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

And you missed the point: the deep state doesn't ignore the will of the voters because it has to uphold constitutional protections, it ignores the will of voters because it substitutes its own narrow interests for those of voters.
 
Ziggurat said:
And you missed the point: the deep state doesn't ignore the will of the voters because it has to uphold constitutional protections, it ignores the will of voters because it substitutes its own narrow interests for those of voters.
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't what you said. You said "government". Do you agree with what I said with regards to the government?

As for the so-called deep state, how do you know their motives?
 
Argumemnon said:
No, that wasn't what you said. You said "government". Do you agree with what I said with regards to the government?
Click to expand...

Oh, for FSM sake. Yes, a constitutional government must protect rights, even against the wishes of the majority.

But we aren't talking about that, so drop it.

As for the so-called deep state, how do you know their motives?
Click to expand...

Because most people are motivated by self-interest. Is that seriously a mystery to you?
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, for FSM sake. Yes, a constitutional government must protect rights, even against the wishes of the majority.

But we aren't talking about that, so drop it.
Click to expand...

Zig, I didn't mean to be confrontational. You DID say "government" so I thought you were talking about that!

Because most people are motivated by self-interest.
Click to expand...

If that's on general principle, why mention it as if it's a feature of the deep state that's different than elected officials, who presumably also put their own interests above those of the electorate?
 
Argumemnon said:
If that's on general principle, why mention it as if it's a feature of the deep state that's different than elected officials, who presumably also put their own interests above those of the electorate?
Click to expand...

Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.
Click to expand...

Sure, ok. But you've always had appointed members of the machine, such as (in some countries) senators, supreme court justices, and the like. I'm sure you'll agree that they can't all be elected, but somehow they're expected to do their jobs.
 
Argumemnon said:
Sure, ok. But you've always had appointed members of the machine, such as (in some countries) senators, supreme court justices, and the like. I'm sure you'll agree that they can't all be elected, but somehow they're expected to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said,
Ziggurat said:
In fact, it's an almost unavoidable agency problem.
Click to expand...

We cannot eliminate the problem. But we can, and should, reduce it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Ok but how do you propose we do that? Elect judges and other government employes? Or just reduce the size of the state? What would be your take on this?
Click to expand...

Plenty of judges are elected. But no, I'm not suggesting making every government job an elected one. Even as a purely practical matter, it's not feasible.

Reducing the size of the state is absolutely one way to help. The smaller the role of government, the less any problems with government matter. Getting rid of public sector unions is another (even that liberal saint FDR recognized the threat they represented), which we could do without shrinking government. And making it easier to fire government employees is another (see the whole VA fiasco).
 
"Deep state" is a conspiracy nutjob term, by and for conspiracy nutjobs. Stop trying to normalize it by assigning spurious mundane meanings. Alex Jones isn't talking about an agency problem in which long-term inertia and employees' interpretation of their job is suddenly called into conflict by the election of a radical. There's already a perfectly adequate term for that: "bureaucracy." Literally, "rule by the office."

No, by "deep state" Alex Jones means a secret cabal of pedophiles who control the media and apparently direct all anti-Russian sentiment. Those are very different things.
 
Ziggurat said:
Plenty of judges are elected. But no, I'm not suggesting making every government job an elected one. Even as a purely practical matter, it's not feasible.

Reducing the size of the state is absolutely one way to help. The smaller the role of government, the less any problems with government matter. Getting rid of public sector unions is another (even that liberal saint FDR recognized the threat they represented), which we could do without shrinking government. And making it easier to fire government employees is another (see the whole VA fiasco).
Click to expand...

This has been a way-too pleasant conversation, Zig. We gotta make up for it, next time. ;)
 
Beelzebuddy said:
"Deep state" is a conspiracy nutjob term, by and for conspiracy nutjobs. Stop trying to normalize it by assigning spurious mundane meanings. Alex Jones isn't talking about an agency problem in which long-term inertia and employees' interpretation of their job is suddenly called into conflict by the election of a radical. There's already a perfectly adequate term for that: "bureaucracy." Literally, "rule by the office."
Click to expand...

Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.
 
Ziggurat said:
Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.
Click to expand...
Alex Jones didn't coin it, but he's using it correctly. It's always meant a secret shadow government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

The pedophile thing is new, though.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.
Click to expand...

You think it is a bad thing for bureaucrats to push back against radicals?

I suspect if a true leftist radical was elected pushing for the elimination of private property (and such) you would be hoping the agencies would be pushing back.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.
Click to expand...

Congressional oversight is the mechanism. Having been for a small part of my life an un-elected member of the executive branch (commissioned officer in the Navy) I was for a few years in an office that did one dozen formal responses to Congressional Inquires that began when someone wrote to their congressman that "X" was wrong or "X" was unfair.

Every so often, you'll find that the Congressional inquiry discovers a wrong being done, and corrected, and other times you'll find that the inquiry discovers that the unelected are in fact doing their jobs by the congressionally approved regulation / law.

How well that functions at the state level I won't try to comment upon, as I do not have detailed experience with that.

I stand by my initial response that the Deep State topic that Travis has broached belongs in the CT forum.
 
Ziggurat said:
Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.
Click to expand...

But it does mean that folks who know about Alex's version of the term will start to wonder if you're a kook. I assume I understand what you mean by the term; the deep state is the entrenched bureaucracy that resists change. It's not some organized conspiracy, but rather the effect of thousands and thousands of individual bureaucrats protecting (and enlarging) their turf.

But Alex's meaning is a whole lot darker; the Deep State is a coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings to defend and expand their evil agenda. It's crazy, but it's a whole lot more interesting than reality.
 
“They’re fighting hard to shut us up because, why?” Cernovich asked. “What is the common theme, Alex?”
“We’re not pedophiles."
Click to expand...

For some reason this just keeps getting played out as a round of Jeopardy! in my head:

Final Jeopardy Category: Movies

Answer: Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur

Question: Who are three people who are not pedophiles?

I'm sorry Cliff, that's not the question we were looking for.

Be that as it may Alex, those people are not pedophiles.
 
It is my contention that a "deep state" cannot logically exist. Here is my primary prohibitive observational evidence. Where am I going wrong?

1. A deep state would simply eliminate or silence people like Alex Jones.

2. Clinton and Trump were the two contenders for president. At least one of them would have to be the deep state choice, assuming the existence of a deep state. Are we to believe that's the best a deep state could come up with?? A short, bitchy old lady and/or an unstable geriatric narcissist? One of them?? Really? Then how in monkey hell did this obviously incompetent deep state manage to take over the world's most powerful country?

See? The "deep state" is logically impossible. Glaringly obviously impossible.

Unless the "deep state" is nothing more than a mindless conglomeration of random power grubbers who have managed to worm their way into positions of power, mostly by a combination of obsessive persistence aided by blind, staggering luck. In which case "deep state" is a misnomer.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
the deep state doesn't ignore the will of the voters because it has to uphold constitutional protections, it ignores the will of voters because it substitutes its own narrow interests for those of voters.
Click to expand...
But what if the Deep State manages to trick most voters into believing that its interests are their interests (eg. fewer financial regulations, tax cuts for the rich, more prisons, stronger military)? Then the only ones who are aware that their interests are being substituted are those who aren't sheeple drinking the kool-aid, ie. conspiracy nuts.

Brainster said:
But Alex's meaning is a whole lot darker; the Deep State is a coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings to defend and expand their evil agenda.
Click to expand...
His ideas about who they are and what their agenda is may be crazy, but the idea of a 'coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings' may not be. Individuals might just be protecting and enlarging their own turf, but they could still share common goals that encourage them to coordinate their efforts.

Travis said:
There is the fantasy "Deep State" where Obama and Soros are giving marching orders to civil servants who are then conspiring to stop the Trump agenda.
Click to expand...
For sure this is a fantasy, but the idea that wealthy individuals are working with politicians 'behind the scenes' to give 'marching orders' to civil servants is not. The real Deep State is not actually the State at all - it is private citizens worming their their way into positions of power via lobbying or elections, then forcing civil servants to enact their toxic agendas. Trump and his cronies are the Deep State!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom